Where history, scholarship, the academic life, and other stuff meet.

As everyone knows, it is the Electoral College that “elects” the president (unless it doesn’t, as most people also know). I can recall how on election night there were people who were willing to concede that Barack Obama would win the electoral vote but that Mitt Romney would carry the popular vote. That turned out not to be the case. Now comes a proposal from a member of the SHPG to thwart both the popular will and the Electoral College.

Election does not get decided until Mid-December when the Electoral College cast their votes AND, if enough of them do not cast their vote, the responsibility falls onto the House of Representatives to choose the next President!

According to Article II of the U.S. Constitution AND the 12th Amendment – if 1/3rd of the States do not cast their votes in the Electoral College, then the matter falls onto the House of Representatives to choose the President. In other words, if we pressure Congressmen, State Party Officials, and groups such as Tea Party Patriots, Heritage Foundation, etc., to call on RED States to NOT have their Electors cast their vote – then the House of Reps CAN choose the next President (and Republicans still have the majority – 233 (R) to 195 (D) – in the House of Represent…actives)!!!

If just 18 RED States agreed to NOT cast their votes in the Electoral College – then it goes to the House. And if pressured –they just might do...

I’ll leave it to you to explain why someone would want to try to disrupt the whole process of selecting a president. What exactly is it about Barack Obama that angers members of the SHPG so much? Any ideas?

Share this:

Like this:

Related

69 thoughts on “The Gift That Keeps On Giving Wants to Take Something Away”

MikeDNovember 18, 2012 / 1:08 pm

“What exactly is it about Barack Obama that angers members of the SHPG so much? ”

The same thing that bothers so many others who share this unreasoning hatred. The same thing that bothers so many of his detractors who can come up with nothing but muslim-kenyan-socialist-hates America-ignores the Constitution and other ridiculousness. . .much as they deny it (hell, some of ’em may not even realize it) . . .it’s the color of his skin.

I agree. The muslim . . . stuff is an attempt to find a way that is not blatantly racist to explain why the President seems alien (in the foreigner sense; not the little sci fi sense) to them.

The one I find the most unintentionally funny is the one that argues that, because the President’s Kenyan family supported independence from the UK, he’s some how or other genetically a revolutionary out to overthrow the government of the US. I find it entertaining that the same people who claim to be the true heirs of the sainted Founding Fathers don’t seem to realize one basic fact about them: not only were they revolutionaries but they started the entire concept in the western world of a revolution based on enlightenment principles instead of picking a party in a royal dynastic struggle. That’s one of the reasons that the western world, both reactionary and progressive factions, watched the outcome of the Civil War so intently. The great experiment was less than a century old; this was the test as to whether or not it could survive internal divisions.

Sorry to disagree, but I think you are both way off base. While there are more than a few who dislike him because of his race, the vast majority see him quite differently. They see a president who denies security enhancements twice for the Benghazi consulate in the few months prior to the 9/11 assault then proceeded to let four men die without lifting a finger to send any of a number of available assets to help during the assault. This was followed by weeks of obfuscation [anti-Islam Internet film caused a riot], until after the election when the MSM decided to cover the story. The sere a president who took advantage of a natural disaster [Sandy] just before the election, put in a lot of photo-op appearances in damage areas, and allowed the press to report FEMA personnel driving around with clipboards…yet to date, the results of Federal assistance is as lacking, if not more so than what FEMA did after Katrina.

Had the MSM put these two stories on the front page where they belonged BEFORE the election a different man would be preparing for Inauguration.

Withholding of the electoral votes just might happen if the investigations into the handling of Benghazi and how the administration reported the information, and the apparent coverup that ensued, shows the responsibility ultimately rests with the White House.

And then there is the economy…

It is interesting about the popular vote…apparently where Romney won the electoral votes, he did so by far wider margins than Obama in his electoral states. The final popular vote showed a margin of only 2.7% for Obama. The Electoral percentage are far different, 62% for Obama to 38% for Romney.

Now about that race thingy…how many people of color voted for Obama because he is one of them?

Let’s once and for all dispense with this ugly business of racism…it degrades any who dabble in it from within or without, and is the province of closed minds and diminishing numbers. Obviously the nation would not have elected the man twice had race played a significant role in the election process. Racism is the last thing that caused him to garner fewer vote this time than last.

Hold on a second. This “characterization” of Present Obama as a Marist, Communist, Fascist, Socialist, Muslim, you name it, began long before the Libyan affair. It started during the presidential election of 2008 and was repeated by so-called main stream Republicans. (Gingrich, Tromp and their ilk.) Muslim, I believe, is a code word for black or “the other”. I personnally know people who told me that they could never vote for a black man. I don’t think that every vote aginst him was made by a racist, but look at those who are the most vociferous in their opposition and characterization of the man. Where are they on the political spectrum?
You’re living in an alternate universe if you think that race has nothing to do with the way his opponents view him.

I have to wonder if all these folks who insist on separating people into neat little categories do so because they can’t seem to find one in which they fit.

MarkNovember 18, 2012 / 9:17 pm

>> I personnally know people who told me that they could never vote for a black man.

And I personally know white people that voted for him only because he was black. I’ll bet you do too. So? That people are still trotting out the racism charge after he got elected is amazing.

MikeDNovember 18, 2012 / 10:59 pm

I don’t know any white people who have made that claim. As far as your observation re the racism charge being “trotted out,” as long as blatant racists continue trotting out their bigoted views on the election (which views are quite rampant in the social media these days) I’d wage that charge will just keep right on keepin’ on. . .and rightfully so.

Well, as the saying goes, you are known by the company you keep. Sounds like you are keeping company with a bunch of closed-minded people.

As for what you read on social media, well… that and a buck might get you a cuppa coffee. If social media is your source of information and trends, and maybe where your friends hang out, perhaps you need to disconnect and rejoin the real world, where civilized folks have gotten past all that racist mumbo-jumbo.

It’s time, too…the world is homogenizing. Don’t get left behind. You can think of it either way: A. it is natural selection at work, or, if you prefer, B. we are all descendants of Adam and Eve, therefor, we are all in the same family.

Now if all that makes you uncomfortable, then perhaps you need to climb a mountain somewhere and sit on top while you contemplate your navel.

KheperaNovember 19, 2012 / 4:19 pm

Oh real world my rear end. Stooping to attack the messenger, eh? And making assumptions regarding my lifestyle and acquaintances, which you know absolutely nothing about, to attempt to make your point.Poor form. And I don’t take rancid bait. I will say this and no more. . .I distrust the person, regardless of his or her color, who can sit there and blankly deny that there are ongoing, serious racial issues in this country that are not likely to get better any time soon as much (if not more) than I distrust the one who sees it under every rock.

MarkNovember 19, 2012 / 5:48 pm

I know quite a few. The truth is that Obama’s race works in his favor.

You do underestimate, however, the extent to which racism plays a part in this. It’s hardly true of all the opposition but it’s far from non-existent, as well. I’ve heard enough people actually state that as a reason for their votes. Same with the “Muslim”/”birther” crap.

Two states Obama lost were Alabama, in which he got 38.4% of the vote, and Mississippi, where he got 43.5% of the vote. Voting in those two states is racially polarized, with whites voting Republican and blacks voting Democratic. It’s not difficult to guess that Obama got less than 15% of the white vote in those states.

Why the difference between white voting behavior in the South and the resto f the nation? Polling done by the PPP group in early 2012 found that “There’s considerable skepticism about Barack Obama’s religion with Republican voters in them. In Mississippi only 12% of voters think Obama’s a Christian to 52% who think he’s a Muslim and 36% who are not sure. In Alabama just 14% think Obama’s a Christian to 45% who think he’s a Muslim and 41% who aren’t sure.”

A mid-2012 Pew Research Poll found that 34% of Conservative Republicans believe Obama is a Muslim, compared to 16% of Independents and 8% of Democrats. The same poll found that 65% of people who say Obama is Muslim are “uncomfortable” with him; by contrast, 82% of people who know he is a Christian are “comfortable” with him.

The point of this is to say that it appears that in the South, there is a disproportionate amount number of people who (incorrectly) believe Obama is a Muslim, and may be voting against him on that basis.

Is this racism or religious bigotry? I think there is a nexus of race and religious bigotry here. Obama’s race, his name, his short residency in a Muslim country, and comments in what many Republicans call the “CEC” (Conservative Entertainment Complex) have led some people to the pejorative characterization of Obama as a Muslim who makes them “uncomfortable.”

I would guess that many of these same people also believe that Obama was not born in the USA.

Outside of white conservatives, and outside of Southern white conservatives especially, very small numbers of whites believe in these “theories” about Obama’s religion and origin. I believe his race, which makes him the “other” on the face, opens the door to such crazy theories among certain portions of the white population. Just my opinion.

As an aside, I don’t think you’ll find many polls where people of today will come out and admit that racism would keep them from voting for Obama.

MarkNovember 19, 2012 / 9:39 am

You know what’s really funny John. If you’re like most who have your view, you probably revile black conservatives as traitors and uncle Toms. I was outraged when Obama said Clarence Thomas “wasn’t qualified” to be on SCOTUS. That was outrageous. Obama the trash talker. He was most certainly qualified. Disagreeing with one’s political views doesn’t make someone incompetent.

I think folks should step back before ascribing views to other posters in order to attack them (as opposed to those views).

I encountered Clarence Thomas back in the 1980s at a meeting of The Federalist Society in Charlottesville, Virginia. That was years before he was nominated to serve on the court. I was not impressed with what I heard (as my notes revealed). Was Thomas qualified? Yes. Was he an inspired choice? No.

That I was at a meeting of The Federalist Society should make some people rethink their assumptions about my political views, by the way, as well as how I operate when it comes to discussing political ideas. Indeed, conservatives call on me much more often than do liberals.

MarkNovember 19, 2012 / 6:09 pm

People use the term “politics” too narrowly. I don’t know why merely having an interest in The Federalist Society would cause someone to rethink anything.

Not sure the point of declaring a judgement on Thomas without giving some of the reasons. Anyway, I only used him as a single example. Liberal hatred for Conservative blacks is exceedingly common. This comes from blacks and non-blacks.

I’m simply recalling an experience and an assessment. At The Federalist Society I can assure you that Thomas was among friends. My point is to observe that my impression was formed long before he became a person of interest nationally.

John FoskettNovember 19, 2012 / 4:10 pm

“If you’re like most who have your view, you probably revile black conservatives as traitors and uncle Toms”

Here’s what happens when you extrapolate by speculation, Mark. You have a 50% chance of getting it wrong. You hit the 50% here. Congratulations.

rcoceanNovember 19, 2012 / 10:12 am

“I’ve heard enough people actually state that as a reason (racism) for their votes.”

I’ve spoken to people in several states, including Arizona and Virginia, where race was mentioned as a consideration in a voter’s decision.

KheperaNovember 19, 2012 / 12:59 pm

I’ve certainly heard enough it here in Missouri. Of course many of these people aren’t quite right in the head anyway. I heard one person opine that the Obama presidency was good because it would ensure that America never had a black president again. Another told me that he was “sick of all this pc.” When I asked him what, in particular, had his goat he told me, “Well, like that Martin Luther King Holiday; I guess ’cause we got a black president now we have to make Martin Luther King’s birthday a holiday.” My pointing out that the King holiday had been around for almost three decades and was signed into law by a Republican president didn’t do anything to dissuade him from the idea that his personal world was falling apart because we have a black president; one for whom he didn’t vote because (wait for it), “. . .for one thing he wasn’t born here.” Ah well, like I said. .. Missouri.

MarkNovember 19, 2012 / 1:09 pm

The majority of Americans are racist. This has been widely known for a long time.

Oh they’re from all over, I reckon. If post-election vitriol is any indication of how people chose to cast their votes, you might be interested in a quick, little study that was done after the election. It was put together by a group called “Floating Sheep.” They’re a group of geographers who generate maps based on user-generated online content.

For this piece they analyzed racist tweets re Obama’s election as compared to the total number of tweets from a given area and assigned “quotient” rankings to the states. Predictably, Mississippi and Alabama were at the top. Interestingly, Arizona was at the very bottom of the list of states that had measurable rankings.

Several. For only one example, folks in the stands attending a Memphis Redbirds AAA game were interviewed at random. I was actually surprised at how frank they were about that. For another, I’ve encountered that view in upstate New York from a few people, as well.

Bob HuddlestonNovember 18, 2012 / 2:08 pm

As always these people have a hard time reading. There is nothing in the Constitution about what happens if a state fails to cast its vote. The “2/3-1/3” refers to a quorum on the House before it gets to vote, If a state’s electors were dumb enough not to vote, their votes would disappear.

I am also ignoring the fact that these clowns obviously do not believe in democracy since the Muslim Socialists received a majority of the popular votes.

“What exactly is it about Barack Obama that angers members of the SHPG so much?” . . . The same thing that bothers so many others who share this unreasoning hatred.

Oh please. Bush “derangement syndrome”, which included a vast number of “Bush is Hitler” assertions to little complaint and assassination fantasies made into films for distribution, wasn’t hatred right? And we had plenty of people claiming that they’d leave the country if Bush was re-elected. All this is now down the memory hole. Folks, this is politics. What is disappointing is that I need to explain this on a blog where people routinely assert their superior understanding of history.

Obama isn’t enduring the level of criticism and abuse that most presidents have. Even the comedians treat him with kid gloves. He’s got a thin skin though, and his supporters insinuate “racism” at every turn. It’s comical.

“He’s got a thin skin though, and his supporters insinuate “racism” at every turn. ”

Please cite your evidence for Obama’s alleged “thin skin.”

And for the record, I’m not insinuating racism; I’m calling it out to its face. There are a few good reasons for conservatives of a certain stripe to disagree with Mr. Obama and his policies. But when one cannot articulate those reasons in any intelligent and valid form; when one has to resort to supporting blatant lies (death panels, anyone? What about cocaine-fueled gay sexual encounters?) or lie about the man’s spiritual choices (Muslim? Antichrist?) or citizenship (Kenyan?) to express their dislike; when someone is ignorant enough of political thought to call him a fascist and a socialist in the same breath; when one has to rely on any of these elements and never once mentions any true and valid reason that a conservative would dislike his policies, then yeah, I’m gonna call ya a racist. Because ya are.

One has only to witness the barrage of racist tweets and Facebook postings that continue to this day to see which way the wind blows for a lot of these people. Speaking of which, someone started a Tumblr page that consists of nothing but tweets and FB postings of some of these folks. ‘Twas interesting to note the number of confederate flags, clothing and even cell phone covers these morons like to sport. Gotta love that good old non-hatin’ heritage!

By the way, Mr. Bush suffered nothing even approaching the hatred some bear for Obama. Don’t even try it. False equivalency.

“This is more than an inconvenience. It goes to your willingness and ability to put up with something you have never experienced on a sustained basis: criticism. At the risk of triggering the very reaction that concerns me, I don’t know if you are Muhammad Ali or Floyd Patterson when it comes to taking a punch. You care far too much what is written and said about you. … When the largely irrelevant Alan Keyes attacked you, you flinched.”

And Obama said this to a crowd in Wisconsin:
“They talk about me like a dog. … That’s not in my prepared remarks, it’s just — but it’s true. … When I walked in [to the White House], wrapped in a nice bow, was a $1.3 trillion deficit sitting on my door step — a welcoming present.”

>> By the way, Mr. Bush suffered nothing even approaching the hatred some bear for Obama. Don’t even try it. False equivalency.

Total BS. Complete utter BS. Bush is Hitler. Bush is a murderer. Movies about assassinating Bush.

What was the film? Missed that one. Re the Bush as murder or Hitler analog, well you see the difference between you and me is that I called that crap out when I encountered it. I didn’t defend those people the way that you defend the racist Obama haters.

I didn’t defend those people the way that you defend the racist Obama haters.

Everyone who opposes Obama is a racist, and so I’m a racist defender by definition. Right Mike? I’m not defending SHPG!!!!!!!!! I deplore them and there tactics!!!!!!!!! I’m defending my own ability to disagree politically with Obama. This post predictably blurred the lines between folks like the SHPG and those merely politically Conservative. Now I’m a racist defender. Unbelievable. You’re in league with the SHPG if you think ObamaCare was an abomination.

And the Bush assassination film won an award at the Toronto Film Festival. I guess you don’t get out much. Wanna guess why it won? It wasn’t the quality. 😉

Let’s get something straight. I know plenty of people who disagree with President Obama who do so based on his policies and his philosophy, not because of his race. As for what the people over at the SHPG think (and I’m sure there’s a diversity of views), who knows? It is clear, however, that in many cases their members’ ignorance of the Constitution is vast and seemingly endless.

It interests me how people have responded to the post in question. In so doing they reveal a number of assumptions that they might ponder. The comments section has become a case study in how in the current environment discussions about politics go to polarizing extremes that inhibit any effort to find a middle ground or at least an arena of mutual respect.

KheperaNovember 19, 2012 / 10:00 am

You need to cool your jets mister, and stop with the straw men. I never ONCE said that anyone who opposes Obama is a racist. I’m neither stupid enough to believe that NOR stupid enough to think that much of the hatred (notice I said, hatred, not dislike, not opposition; hatred) directed at him isn’t based on his race.That’s the straw man that you defenders like to pull out of your little tinfoil hats whenever anyone mentions race. You deniers are no better than the folks who see racism at every turn. Then you stoop to telling me I don’t get out much? How about I simply have no interest whatsoever in political fiction, particularly fiction that depicts the assassination of a living American president, past or present.

This isn’t about you and your ability to defend *your* views. The world does not revolve around you and your views. We are not discussing you and your views. The post was about the evident hatred over at SHPG. Because *your* views on Obama are not racist no one else’s are?

Am I not on record here as stating that there are quite a few valid reasons that people of a certain conservative bent might dislike Obama’s policies? Did I not say that calling him a socialist, Kenyan Muslim instead of discussing those policies earmarks a racist in my perception? Or did you miss that in your rush to deny that Obama’s election brought a ton of racists out of the woodwork?

MarkNovember 19, 2012 / 7:14 pm

>> You need to cool your jets mister, and stop with the straw men. I never ONCE said that anyone who opposes Obama is a racist. . . . You deniers are no better than the folks who see racism at every turn.

I’m a denier of racism? Oh noo, no straw man here. 😉

MarkNovember 20, 2012 / 1:28 pm

In 1991 Obama’s literary agency, Acton & Dystel, said this in their promotion material for his upcoming book:

“Barack Obama, the first African-American president of the Harvard Law Review, was born in Kenya and raised in Indonesia and Hawaii.” Obama never objected because it added to his cool factor to pretend he was foreign born. He’s contributed to the confusion.

And the fact is that Bush was called a racist quite frequently. If calling someone a racist that isn’t isn’t hatred, I don’t know what is.

MarkNovember 18, 2012 / 9:58 pm

>> By the way, Mr. Bush suffered nothing even approaching the hatred some bear for Obama. Don’t even try it. False equivalency.

Until you can show me that GWB was called a n****r or a c***n, was charged with not being a citizen of the land he was born in, had his mother called a “race-traitor” and whore for her choice of husband, had his religious beliefs impugned or his wife called a gorilla because of the color of her skin, you can keep your false equivalencies to yourself. They certainly mean nothing to me or any other thinking person. Once again. . .where are the valid and intellectually honest political issues? I could give a rat’s nether regions about Mr. Bush. He’s long gone. The original (and extant) question is/was whence the hatred for Obama?

The charge is made by blacks, sherlock. And you lecture me on “false equivalencies”? Rich.

KheperaNovember 19, 2012 / 4:22 pm

I doubt there are many blacks posting over at StormFront. Just sayin’. And you’re gonna sit there and tell me that blacks would call a white woman a race traitor for marrying a black African? With a straight face?!? Ohhh, Willis, Willis, Willis. . .😉

Okay, now you’re just being silly. I’ve no other way to explain your lack of reading comprehension and intellectual dishonesty; no kind way in any case. This has gone too far afield from the original post, but I need to make something clear to you. Yes, I know, it’s a losing proposition, but here goes. . .

Let’s see here: I said that GWB had never had his mother called a whore and a race traitor.
You said that’s a black charge. I asked you why blacks would call a white woman who married a black man a race traitor. You link to an article discussing black women who form romantic relationships with white men to, I guess, prove your point. Disingenuous much?

Now, I’ve known of black *women* who would have a few choice names for a white woman who married a black man. I won’t abuse Prof. Simpson’s good graces or hospitality by repeating them here; but race traitor is NOT one of them. heheh. . .that would be mild. No, that’s a term that the nutless and gutless wonders who frequent StormFront and the like use. It’s usually used to castigate liberal whites who believe in racial equality in general; but it’s prized use is to denote white people (*especially* women) who have intimate relations with the “mud races;” *especially* blacks. Do blacks ever use the term? I suppose there are some fringies who would and do. . .but never about a white woman, silly wabbit.😉

“. . . .hot topic among black community for a number of years.” Once again, whatchu talkin’ ’bout, Willis?!? Boy, where have you been? A number of years? I’m 60 years old, black-identified and came of age during the black civil rights era; I come from a family with a very long history (1700s) of racial mixing. That “hot topic” you mention has been a hot topic among both blacks and whites since well before your great-great-great grandparents were born.

By the way, to spare you further confusion, I just realized that my two computers log me in automatically under different accounts evidently. I am also khepera. But as far as I’m concerned, this particular line of conversation stops here. Like I said, it’s become far too silly to hold my attention

MarkNovember 20, 2012 / 8:53 am

Look Mike, I have never heard of the term race-traitor until you brought it up. I assumed you were generalizing about those objecting to whites marrying blacks, and in my circles that charge comes from the black community. I didn’t understand that you were speaking of a literal term I’ve never heard used. I know the sad history on racial mixing. That is not what I was talking about.

Why does ALL opposition to President Obama seem to get brushed with the racism card? Sure the “gift that keeps on giving” is rightly suspect, but could it be that for a far greater number outside the SHPG crowd, the issues are ideological and would still be there if President Obama’s skin color was green with pink poke-a-dots or lily New England white? The issue I have with the recent election is that extremists from BOTH side were ranting so shrilly that any thoughtful and reasonable discussion was flushed down the toilet.

More to the the point of the original post, the SHPG perception of the Electoral college matter is just plain flat out silly, as much so as the current secessionist blather….

This article states, “According to Article II of the U.S. Constitution AND the 12th Amendment – if 1/3rd of the States do not cast their votes in the Electoral College — then the matter falls onto the House of Representatives to choose the President.” However, that is not what the 12th Amendment says. What the 12th Amendment says that if a candidate gets the majority of electoral votes (currently 270), the election does not go to the House of Representatives. If, and only if, the election goes to the House of Representatives, does the “2/3rds of the states” requirement kick in. See the text of the 12th Amendment.

The liberals and progressives try to modify, interpret, and twist the words of the constitution to suit the given situation. Conservatives and Republicans have no reason to do so; we should adhere strictly to the actual meaning of the words in the constitution.

One of the quorums is in case the vice presidential election goes to the U.S. Senate – each senator gets one vote, 51 votes are needed for election, and 2/3rds of the Senate must be present for a quorum to exist. And the other quorum is in case the presidential election goes to the U.S. House – each state delegation gets one vote, 26 votes are needed for election, and 2/3rds of the state delegations must be present for a quorum to exist.

However, these two quorums come into effect only if no presidential candidate gets 270 electoral votes. If a candidate gets 270 or more electoral votes, they become the president. The 12th Amendment says: “A quorum for this Purpose shall consist of a Member or Members from two thirds of the States….” In this quote, “for this purpose” refers only to the case where no presidential candidate receives 270 electoral votes, and therefore the election has gone to the House. If a candidate receives 270 electoral votes, he is elected president, and the election does not go to the House, and “this purpose” never exists.

Well correct me if I’m wrong, but I thought it has always been the libs claiming the electoral college needs to be abolished. I’ve never heard a Conservative say that, and I’d be pretty surprised if they did even if a Republican won the popular but lost the electoral. I think the electoral college was one of the great innovations of the Founders and I’d always oppose its abolishment no matter what. Without it in such a big nation the political parties would ignore 75% of the nation geographically. That wouldn’t be a good thing in my opinion.

You’ve never heard a conservative say it? There are a great many ignorant people who call themselves conservative who are saying exactly that. The comments forums in my hometown newspapers are quite amusing these days.

There was a period prior to the election when many thought Obama would win the Electoral vote, but lose the popular vote. You can bet the rent that many conservatives were preparing anguished polemics on the need to abolish the Electoral College.

Most Americans don’t care whether their presidential candidate wins or loses in their state. . . they care whether he/she wins the White House. Voters want to know, that even if they were on the losing side, their vote actually was directly and equally counted and mattered to their candidate. Most Americans think it’s wrong for the candidate with the most popular votes to lose. We don’t allow this in any other election in our representative republic.

The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).

Every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in presidential elections. No more distorting and divisive red and blue state maps. There would no longer be a handful of ‘battleground’ states where voters and policies are more important than those of the voters in 80% of the states that now are just ‘spectators’ and ignored after the conventions.

When the bill is enacted by states with a majority of the Electoral College votes– enough Electoral College votes to elect a President (270 of 538), all the Electoral College votes from the enacting states would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states and DC.

Unable to agree on any particular method for selecting presidential electors, the Founding Fathers left the choice of method exclusively to the states in section 1 of Article II of the U.S. Constitution– “Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors . . .” The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly characterized the authority of the state legislatures over the manner of awarding their electoral votes as “plenary” and “exclusive.”

The constitution does not prohibit any of the methods that were debated and rejected.

The presidential election system that we have today was not designed, anticipated, or favored by the Founding Fathers but, instead, is the product of decades of evolutionary change precipitated by the emergence of political parties and enactment by 48 states of winner-take-all laws, not mentioned, much less endorsed, in the Constitution.

The bill uses the exclusive power given to each state by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution to change how they award their electoral votes for president. Historically, virtually all of the major changes in the method of electing the President, including ending the requirement that only men who owned substantial property could vote and 48 current state-by-state winner-take-all laws, have come about by state legislative action.

The bill has passed 31 state legislative chambers in 21 states. The bill has been enacted by 9 jurisdictions with 132 electoral votes – 49% of the 270 necessary to go into effect.

While the idea is nothing wild and crazy it isn’t bad. However, it won’t happen nor will spreading out the electoral votes in each state to end the winner take all method currently employed. The people up high in both political parties do not want to end the winner take all system because that’s the bedrock of both party’s success. If that ends, it will open up the process to the third parties. You can bet your last buck that the Dems and Repubs are more than willing to stick with the current system than to allow third parties to gain in power.

More than 2,110 state legislators (in 50 states) have sponsored and/or cast recorded votes in favor of the National Popular Vote bill.

The bill has passed 31 state legislative chambers in 21 states. The bill has been enacted by 9 jurisdictions with 132 electoral votes – 49% of the 270 necessary to go into effect.

In 1969, The U.S. House of Representatives voted for a national popular vote by a 338–70 margin. It was endorsed by Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, and various members of Congress who later ran for Vice President and President such as then-Congressman George H.W. Bush, and then-Senator Bob Dole.

Jimmy DickNovember 19, 2012 / 7:29 pm

Since the Democrats have won five of the last six popular vote totals in the presidential elections I would bet that if this proposal started to gain serious interest Republican controlled legislatures that have already passed it would try to rescind it. I personally don’t think it would matter if it passed or not, but I don’t think it is going to any time soon.

Obama ran a more well-organized campaign. His party curried the favor of all minorities, the young, women and the disenfranchised. Romney’s campaign still believed in political thought of 2004. The demographics have changed and unless the Republican party can become more contemporary and progressive they cannot win or come close in 2016.

The secession movement has already been ruled on and is a mission of fools. Bummer’s only beef is when he is stereotyped as an old, fascist, racist, conservative white guy.

Good point. I find that the conservatives professed faith in the Supreme Court right up until the ruling they expected to wipe Obamacare out with didn’t turn out the way they wanted. All of a sudden the Consitution wasn’t so sancrosanct and needed to be changed which was something they said they didn’t want to do before the ruling. Now add in the election and you can see where they really hate how it doesn’t work in their favor. A little hypocrisy perhaps on their part?

Oh come on. Hope that they would is not faith. Conservatives have been wary of SCOTUS for many years, as have the Libs when they even think it will rule against them. Many of the national Republican leaders warned that it didn’t matter if SCOTUS gave it a pass, that it would only move the fight to the legislative arena. And the fight will now move to the states. Neither side gives up after one battle.

The problem is that ObamaCare won’t work as passed, and wasn’t intended to. It was only a “starting place” that the Dems thought they’d have plenty of time to tinker with, but got creamed in 2010 and lost the House. It will still be an issue in 2016. But tinkering wouldn’t even save it since no nation on earth has ever tried a program on this scale. The largest European state has 80 million people, and the U. S. has 4 times that and growing. If it were ever implemented fully it would face a Soviet-style collapse.

I disagree about Obamacare, Mark. You’re placing it as too big to succeed and as we’ve seen from Social Security and Medicare it is only a matter of scale. I think it will succeed, but it will require some tinkering over time to get it working at the level it should. I’m sure we’ll continue to hear the conservatives whine about it, but then they whined about Social Security and it succeeded. They whined about Medicare and it succeeded. Looking at history we see holding actions by conservatives repeatedly, but in the end those actions fall short of preventing progress. Eventually liberals succeed.
I always find it interesting that people say it won’t work when it has been working in Massachusetts and similar programs work well in other countries. I think the real truth is the Republicans fear that it will be successful and Democrats will receive credit for it and end up controlling the government for a long period of time. I personally think we’ve entered into a liberal cycle of politics like Schlesinger depicted in his book, The Cycles of American History.

It will fail. That it is historically unprecedented on this scale isn’t the only reason. You don’t realize this, but there has been a business revolution sweeping the world for a few years now. It is sweeping out middlemen. It used to be that large entities negotiated what consumers got. Now the companies that don’t sell direct to the consumer are all in decline, and some in spectacular collapse. Those that sell directly to the consumer are thriving.

There is no good reason for my employer to negotiate with a large “health care” organization about what insurance I should have. None, and I resent it. The day of doctors knowing vastly more about health than the common person is over. This is a holdover from the country doctor and then WWII era politics. There has been a medical revolution, an information revolution, and finally a business revolution. Strike three. ObamaCare is hitting the perfect storm. It won’t last, and it won’t matter what your politics are or what Europe did decades ago. The American consumer will never allow large distant entities to make choices for them. They’ll be going straight to their doctors and specialists, and nothing can stop this. Oh and it benefits the doctors too. Nothing stops forces like this, and nothing will.

Jimmy, in my profession I witness and read about projects that fail because of the scale every day. The idea that what works on a smale scale will work on a large scale unchanged is just something people who don’t manage projects imagine. They don’t. They never have. It doesn’t matter what cycle of politics we’re in. Idealism crashes against reality eventually. Politics has little to do with it. To a man with a hammer, everything looks like a nail. Politics is what fills in the gaps after these clashes with reality. Those who think politics trump these forces haven’t read history very well. There probably wouldn’t have been a secession movement without the railroads. I like politics and political history better than most, but it simply doesn’t determine the fate of ObamaCare.

Mark, I still disagree. I just read two days ago how the large insurance companies are setting up exchanges within their company for employees, not employers to utilize. Aon was specifically mentioned as one rolling this out next year. Employers speak with large health care organizations all the time in negotiating insurance. The exchanges from the companies actually can work to cut costs and move the insurance choices to the employee giving them more control over their insurance.
To be honest, I don’t think you’ve studied Obamacare that much beyond the usual rightwing rhetoric. You’re also negletcting that SS and Medicare have worked on the large scale so I have to disagree eith your opinion on that iessue.

Since current politics is a dead end argument and time sink we will continually disagree over it. Fair enough. I am more interested in your statement, “There probably wouldn’t have been a secession movement without the railroads.” Could you please elaborate on that?

A black student classmate of mine used to say that the term “racism” had no real meaning anymore. He used the term “racialism”. If I showed him that Boston Globe article that said the majority of Americans were racist, he wouldn’t say the article was “racist.” He’d say it was a form of racialism or racialization.